Talk:Kurt Cobain

Picture

Cant anyone change that picture that is at the top of the article, that with Kurt, Novoselic and Grohl. Theres plenty of pictures of him that are much better.

We have to use pictures that are either free or have been released by their owners. This picture meets those requirements. We've tried other photographs, but they've all failed to meet that standard, as would almost every picture you could just pull off of a website. -- ChrisB 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I find it hard to believe that that's really the best picture anyone could find

Maybe this is that should be: [1]. -- tcb 08:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cobain.com is not his official website. The website owner is just using wikipedia to advertise for their site. It should be deleted.

I do not believe the current pic mets standards either and if it does it shold have grohl and novoscelic edited out --Ninandnirvana 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

article's first image

why don't you put a nice photo in instead of that ridiculous one? I just can't understant it; and yet they want to consider it a feature article. Ridiculos. Anonymous user.

Yes! I agree! It is incredibly distasteful to see young men looking so drastically "ridiculos"! All featured pages should feature the subject dressed in full regalia, including but not limited to a tuxedo WITH tie, BLACK trousers and shoes, and neatly groomed, well-manicured hair, teeth, and fingernails!

Seriously, though-- what --70.108.116.231 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a good image

I got a good image that seems to be from the same photo shoot as the main on now, only it features Cobain alone. I can't seem to access it though, as it is from some sort of spanish website, so if you speak spanish go here, search for Kurt Cobain, you can't miss the photo, he's in the same clothing and glasses. and find out whether it can be used. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

We can't just pull pictures off of websites and use them. The current photo has a fair use justification because it was distributed as a promotional photo. The picture you're describing was not. -- ChrisB 22:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A-class

How on Earth can an article be beyond the FA class (i.e. be an A-class article), but is not an actual featured article? Iolakana•T 19:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around; FA class is higher than A class. WesleyDodds 02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get started

1. "Love later insisted publicly that the incident was Cobain's first suicide attempt."

This is POV, it's in there to support the murder theory that says that Love only started saying he was suicidal just before he committed suicide because she needed people to believe she wasn't the murderer because it wasn't suicide after all! dun-dun-duh! Except it's rubbish. So "later" should be removed, and maybe the whole thing unless you have proof she actually said that.

1. "Cobain had his first taste of the drug sometime in 1986, thanks to a local drug dealer who had been supplying him with Percodans"

If there's a source for this I would love to know why this sentence uses sarcasm in a POV way as emotive writing? Otherwise it also needs deleting. Is it the position of wikipedia to thank anyone's drug dealer?

1. "On April 3, Love contacted a private investigator, Tom Grant, and hired him to find Cobain. The next day, Love filed a missing person report under Cobain's mother's name without her permission. She added in the file that Cobain was suicidal and was in possession of a shotgun."

Source: Justice For Kurt. Um, no. Just no. Most unreliable biased source ever.

This isn't an A grade article. It certainly doesn't deserve FA, and it wouldn't even get GA if you nom'd it for it. It's B/C grade. I'm leaning towards C, actually. Which is what i'm changing it to. --I'll bring the food 05:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears some editor has bizarrely GA passed this tripe. I have removed it. This article needs MASSIVE work.--I'll bring the food 05:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You broke the guidelines for delisting a GA. See #5: Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article. Your concerns can and will be addressed, but your action was grossly inappropriate under the circumstances. -- ChrisB 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll give it one month. Any more than that would just be pandering.--I'll bring the food 23:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

This paragraph has NO BEARING on his life. Given that it happened during his childhood, it's even less relevant - most people do things during their childhood that they're not proud of. If he talked about it later in life (as in the case of his vandalism), it would be worth noting. But that is categorically not the case here.

More importantly, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include every piece of information about their life. Those details should be left to published biographies. Wikipedia articles are supposed to encapsulate the most important elements of a person's life - and this random bit of animal cruelty does not in any way meet that threshold.

Regardless, the Blender article contains numerous inaccuracies. For example, Kurt DID NOT PLAY DRUMS on Grohl's recordings. That was a rumor from several years ago that was completely debunked when the full details of Nirvana's final session were explained. Kurt only attended the sessions for one afternoon, during which they recorded two takes of "You Know You're Right" and a jam. Kurt was not there for the rest of the session.

Worst of all, that article is clearly sourced from other sources, which are all unnamed. (There is no way he could have compiled that information first-hand.) Several of the stories sound like they came from Michael Azerrad's Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana and Charles Cross' Heavier than Heaven, but there's no way to prove it since the author didn't provide references. The article very strongly suggests that the author simply read those books and picked out a few highlights. That Kurt died listening to R.E.M. was an assertion made by Cross that was never suggested or confirmed by the Seattle PD. -- ChrisB 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article makes Kurt sound like a god beyond the drug usage. You can't represent that he was such a great guy without counterbalancing it with the amoral things he did, like the animal cruelty, the semen picture, ect. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case: [2]. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I've expanded the lead section slightly to fit the guideliens presented at WP:LEAD. Yes, that means we have to mention his death in the beginning of the article. However, I think I've written it in a way to keep it as NPOV as possible and not cause problems regarding the whole suicide debate. WesleyDodds 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain beat ELVIS as the highest earning dead person, just 12 years after death! muHAHA

GO to www.forbes.com for more info. Yep, I'm putting this in. 71.236.225.50 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This information is irrelevant and grossly misleading. He only topped the list because of Courtney's sale of her stake in Nirvana's catalog, which is already mentioned in Nirvana's article. The deal was valued at $50 million. Forbes specifically mentions this as the source of what put him at the top of the list. If she hadn't sold the stake, Cobain would not have even APPEARED on this list. -- ChrisB 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This information is completely relevent. The fact that Courtney sold the farm may not be more than a passing current event, but the fact that she sold it for a record setting amount lends the event historical significance that is well worth noting in the life and legacy of Cobain. To add to the historical significance, this is the first time any late celeb has earned more money in a fiscal year than Elvis. Furthermore, I don't see how this is misleading. Anyone who reads the information (that was originally posted, that is) will know that it's only because of Courtney's deal with Primary Wave that he appeared on the Forbes list, but how does that make it a fluke? That's how dead people make money- their families sell their rights and estates. Do you think the $24 million that John Lennon made this year was purely from royalties? Beatles fans don't like Yoko Ono any more than Nirvana fans like Courtney Love, but that doesn't change the fact that she is primarily responsible for how much the Lennon name rakes in each year. The fact that a single sale of the Cobain estate, whether Courtney was behind it or not, made more money than all the royalties and estate sales of Elvis combined in this particular year makes it absolutely worth noting in his bio.

Below is the original paragraph that was inserted in the Legacy section on Oct 24, 2006. --Atomicskier 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In October 2006, Cobain's posthumous fame among mainstream media was revived when Forbes Magazine® ranked him as the top dollar-earning dead celebrity, earning an estimated $50 million from October 2005 to October 2006. In the six years of the list's publication, Elvis Presley had topped the list every year, but The King fell short of Cobain's earnings by about $8 million. This was the first time that Cobain appeared on the list, and according to Forbes writer Lacey Rose, "his debut atop the list is largely due to his widow, Courtney Love, who sold a 25% stake in his song catalog to publishing company Primary Wave for a reported $50 million."

Fortune should know better. It means little to compare current celebrities to past celebrities unless you convert their earning into real dollars (control for inflation) based on the year that they earned the money. For example, Cobain's $50M would only be $34M in 1990 dollars, to pick a random year. Of course this error is repeated everywhere when people say 'he's worth more than Rockefeller was' and the like. I guess it's easier to report misleading numbers than to educate the public that only adjusted dollars can be compared across years (something that the government invariable takes advantage of when they describe a funding increase for a poverty, or whatever that meets or even falls below inflation as "increased spending on poverty"). Antonrojo 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? As they do every year, Forbes (not Fortune) was reporting on this fiscal year only, not what the Elvis name made in the past. So what does inflation have to do with anything? Did you read the article before you weighed in?

That's true. The article I read lists these as the 'richest' celebrities--a term that typically is used to refer to net worth, e.g. Forbes_400. Antonrojo 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, the first sentence of the paragraph you added is original research. Nowhere in that article does it say that his "posthumous fame among mainstream media was revived".

But, furthermore, the stat itself is MEANINGLESS. How is it important that Elvis topped the list N years running? Do you think his estate is battling it out for the top of the "chart"? Do they time their deals to bump their chart rank? And your statement about "she sold it for a record setting amount" is patently false. What "record" did the sale set?

This chart has approximately as much notability as the NME's "Best Album of the 1990s" chart. Forbes may be a notable source when it comes to rating companies, but the same notability doesn't apply to things like "Highest Earning Dead Celebrity". This is not a widely-recognized chart like the Billboard 200 - it's a magazine-driven chart intended for PR value. Next year, this paragraph will have NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER in this article.

If you're looking for a compromise, here's the best I can do - I wouldn't object to adding one sentence to the paragraph about the licensing deal that's in the Nirvana article (and maybe move the whole section here) saying that the deal resulted in his appearance at the top of the Forbes chart.

Having said that, this paragraph IN NO WAY belongs in a section about Kurt's legacy and his continuing impact. He didn't reach the top of the Forbes chart because of his legacy - he got there because Courtney found someone who was willing to pay money for the rights to license his music. -- ChrisB 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While I still don't agree with all of your points, I can concede that the placement is not ideal. Although I still see the events- both the sale to Primary Wave and the publication in Forbes, as noteworthy, it would be better suited to a section that reads more like a post-suicide timeline of noteable events. Until a section like that can be drafted, perhaps the paragraph should be "archived" here in the discussion section. If you want to pull it, do the honors. --Atomicskier 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New Photo

There's a photo I found here, copyright is given, perhaps they can be contacted and we may get a free photo. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Here's a new photo, a photo of Cobain solo wearing the same outfit and in the same exact spot as the photo we have now, only it's only Kurt. I'd like to have some thoughts from the frequent editors of this article about whether it can be uploaded. 75pickup (talk · contribs)

Contacting someone for copyright clearance is a fool's errand. Even if you could find the owner, I highly doubt they'd make the thing free for use. If they were going to do that, they wouldn't have pressed to have their name and copyright attached to it.

The latter can't be used because it's an altered version of the same photograph we already have. (All they did was remove Grohl and Novoselic.) The picture is copyrighted, the only reason that this one is usable is because it was offered for promotional use in support of In Utero. The altered photo is a derivative work, which isn't covered by fair use.

For us to be able to use a picture, it either has to be COMPLETELY free or useable via fair use. For the latter, that usually means a picture that has been offered for promotional use. And that's the problem - Cobain was never promoted by himself, only with Nirvana, so the only known promotional photographs are like the one we have.

Frankly, I don't think this picture is a problem. We've gone more than two years looking (and failing) to find one that would meet the requirements. This one does. Barring a future project (like Journals) where a Cobain pic might be offered for promotional use, it's going to be nearly impossible to find something usable and worth using.

BTW - don't sign your posts with the user template. Use four tildes ~ consecutively at the very end of your post so that the time and date of the post will be recorded. -- ChrisB 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking at this: You may be looking for:

• Template:Non-free promotional
• Template:Advert
• Template:Promotional tone

copyright template, and it mentions nothing about altering photographs, so I am uploading it. It is fair use and I trust that it will not be changed. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't explain fair use. Not mentioning it doesn't mean that it's okay. I added a request to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations for someone else to take a look at it and judge its legality here. Please do not re-add the photograph until we can get a clear answer. -- ChrisB 16:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better picture Savagepine 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain

The following was pulled from my talk page. Seems more suitable to discuss this here. -- ChrisB 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question? Do you actually believe Kurt was murdered? From what I can gather, you don't, but I'm not sure.

The reason I ask is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

What if there was something similar for everyone interested in speculating on Cobain's death? Don't you think that, considering the law AND everyone close to Cobain have all closed the case, that it's embarrassing and approximates urban legend AND slander that wikipedia is forced to entertain internet extremists?

I really think you should consider helping to petition for a separation of the two articles. This sort of insanity only does his memory injustice and makes him into an E! True Hollywood Story. Mistertruffles 21:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, look: here are the first five pages of celebrity biography articles which I selected completely at random off the top of my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lucas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Russell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Lee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

NONE of them contains a preface anything like the Cobain opening paragraphs, which contain at least three ridiculously non-NPOV statements, particularly the "curious death" and cheeseball statement about him never wanting to be famous. You know more than anyone from monitoring that page that Cobain has insane fans galore. I really think you should start nudging the page more toward impartiality. I know it sounds like I'm telling you what to think, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. The difference between the Cobain opening paragraphs and 99% of all other celebrity prefaces is obvious. Mistertruffles 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, none of this belongs on my talk page, as this should involve more than just me.

It doesn't matter what I believe as far as his death is concerned. If you have to know, it varies by the day. I have issues with several of Grant's claims (namely that the 1.52 figure seems to alternate between milligrams and milliliters, and I don't have enough knowledge about measurements to know that the two are directly compatible). However, it's hard not to ignore the absurdity of some of Love's claims and the fact that several of the key elements of the official report don't make sense. But, again, my opinion does not matter here.

The question of his death is entirely relevant to this article, given how widespread the debate is among the Nirvana fanbase. We've worked very hard to create a version of the story that stays NPOV and makes no judgements as to the validity of the arguments. We offer points about the conspiracy, and include contradicting evidence offered by those who disagree.

The only reason that there's a separate JFK conspiracy article is because the discussion is too long for it to be contained in a single article about JFK. There is no substantial reason to move this content to another article.

Regarding the lead section, simply read WP:LS:

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

The conspiracy is a substantial element of the article as it stands. WP:LS is CLEAR in this matter.

But, furthermore, your claim that the one sentence included somehow slants the article is nothing short of arrogant. The sentence as written, "However, the unusual circumstances of his death fueled much analysis and debate," is the very definition of NPOV. It says that there is debate - WHICH THERE IS. The sentence, as written, DOESN'T EVEN REFERENCE WHAT THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE IS. As that sentence stands, the "analysis and debate" could very well be the reasons for his suicide - many people openly discussed what might have driven him to suicide.

I could understand your being upset if the sentence were something like: "However, many people, citing inaccuracies in the official reports, believe that Cobain was murdered." In truth, that statement would also be NPOV, given that it accurately represents the truth and also lends no credence to the claims. At the same time, the version as we've written it is even more NPOV and perfectly suited for the lead section, given that it does not reference the specific elements of the "analysis and debate".

I want to be specific about this: your opinion that the murder conspiracy "does his memory injustice" is simply that: YOUR OPINION. It's one POV among many. There are many others who fervently believe that the suicide claim denigrates his memory by portraying him as a depressive junkie who put a gun to his head. That's hardly a positive way to think about somebody, ESPECIALLY if it isn't true. The goal of NPOV is to take any and all notable opinions and cast them in such a way that they are reasonably presented (in a journalistic manner) with no one opinion cast as the one "true" opinion.

Pulling or singificantly altering the section because YOU don't agree with it would be a complete violation of NPOV. And Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear in this regard. -- ChrisB 17:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That something is NPOV and not slander is arguable in this context. Bearing in mind that wiki has rules surrounding issues like these, and that the issues discussed have been sued out of much of mainstream journalism for exactly the reason of its libellous nature, it's not really relevant to point out that it's only my opinion. It clearly isn't.

The major problem Kurt-conspiracy people have is that no one in the mainstream media has written even one piece of investigative journalism on this topic, besides four nutbags and the rabid fans who follow them. Pretty much everyone else denounces the theory. There is no "let's examine the facts" article to be found in favor of the story.

Again, look at Kennedy for comparison. It's not hard to find magazine and newspaper articles on the topic of his assassination. The substantial weirdness of that story has trickled easily into mainstream consciousness. Whereas no real journalist or magazine has ever supported the Cobain conspiracy theory--not even in the wake of the pathetically terrible Broomfield documentary! This is the kind of POV where the only people who carry it are internet extremists. In my opinion, that's embarrassing, and fairly discrediting.

I already made my case about the opening paragraphs. Flaunting the wiki definition of an opening paragraph is not much of a response to what I said. And really, the idea that the opening is NPOV is absurd. It informs the reader that he was "a reluctant spokesman for Generation X" (puke), and then tells you a band led by a guy who signed to Geffen records, a major label, never wanted to be famous. A quick temperature reading of most Kurt diehards suggests that this is a favored perception of him, and not NPOV at all; in fact, it's fairly obvious Charles Cross wrote the biography he did to help dispel this perception. "Who will be the King and Queen of outcast teens," indeed.

As for the suggestion that the line about the unusual circumstances of his death doesn't allude to the conspiracy, you'll forgive me if I'm a tad incredulous.

I appreciate the hard work done on the article, but the major problem with the article is still that it supports urban legend. No real journalist has ever written a piece supporting the idea that Kurt wrote Courtney's songs, and Erlandson's comment obviously clears up the "Old Age" issue, yet the comment remains, along with the ridiculously POV assertion that Love is "unpopular". Go to any number of RIDICULOUSLY unpopular celebrity wiki pages and please tell me if it says so there. Do you think if you go to Paris Hilton's page now, it will say "many people hate her for being a greedy, anorexic cunt"? Pretending the Kurt page isn't tailored to the perspective of a diehard Kurt fan in various places is pretty silly. Think of all the celebrity gossip and slander out there surrounding tons of people--do you think you'll find it spread around on their wiki pages? This conversation is seriously daffy when you look at any other page on wikipedia. There is no comparable page to Kurt's.

By the way, can we archive all the stuff over six months old that's on this Talk page, the way people do on their own Talk pages? Or is that against some general rule? It's a freaking mess. Mistertruffles 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything you're addressing here is an opinion. It is your opinion. Removing the opposing opinion would kill NPOV. Yet that's precisely what you're demanding we do.

This article meets every Wikipedia guideline to the letter. Just because you don't agree with the content doesn't mean it's invalid. Read ALL of the main guidelines and you'll understand that.

The consensus for this article is what you read here. One person can disagree with the consensus, and we can make accommodations for that opinion, but that one opinion cannot override the existing consensus, which is PRECISELY what you're asking us to do.

This article's content in no way amounts to slander. I don't think I need to mention that your Paris Hilton comparison is absurd - this isn't Courtney's article. If we had a comment like "many people hate Cobain because they think he's too emo", you might have a point.

It is well-documented (and cited) that Courtney was not universally adored by Nirvana's fanbase or by the people around him. Do I need to mention Steve Albini's quote: "I don’t feel like embarrassing Kurt by talking about what a psycho hose-beast his wife is, especially because he knows it already." (Azerrad, Musician, October 1993.)

And, again, you're pushing ridiculous reasoning as to why the conspiracy content shouldn't be included. It doesn't matter if it's journalistic or not (and some would readily argue with you about it). Wikipedia's three main guidelines are: WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Those are the specific three that we are charged to follow. And this article meets that WITHOUT QUESTION. We address the topic, and offer the counter opinion. Every discussed element comes from a verifiable source. That's it. That's all we need to do, and we've done that.

How about a little hypocrisy, too? You're criticising us for being too "tailored to the perspective of a diehard Kurt fan", but what the hell is going on with Courtney's article? One of the most notable elements of her life and career has been the rift between people who think she's a manipulative starfucker and those who believe she's a powerful, strong woman and a role model. Yet there's barely any criticism of her anywhere in the article. Seriously, you're complaining about the fact that this article is too defensive of Kurt, yet Courtney's article pulls even more egregious stunts by finding creative ways to excuse her behavior. (Her legal problems amount to a list of what they are?!? Really?)

You know what isn't NPOV? How about addressing Kurt & Courtney and summarizing it with: "Broomfield's documentary ends with the director declaring that he doesn't believe the evidence points to Love being a murderer." Oh, so the fact that he believed that Courtney was hampering his investigation wasn't noteworthy enough to be included in the article? How about the part where he confronted her about it during the last part of the movie? The only reason the movie is even MENTIONED in Love's article is to debunk the conspiracy, which is a complete abuse of Broomfield's opinion and the movie.

Seriously, give me a break. You don't have to take my word for it, either: put Love's article up for comment and see what happens. Love's article is a PUFF PIECE compared to this one. -- ChrisB 05:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't get that there's literally not one person on wikipedia--not even Michael Jackson--who deals with the kind of allegations Courtney Love does, despite the fact that, again, no prominent figure has supported the allegations for one second. It isn't a puff piece because it abandons a discussion about something that no one credible supports. Wikipedia is not investigative journalism; it is a NPOV encyclopedia with an alert to avoid slander on living persons. You don't realize that because you've been parked in Cloud Cuckoo Land with this nutty page for God knows how long.

There's no reason to address Kurt & Courtney at length, the most basic reason being that it can be discussed on its own page. I think the section on Cross on Kurt's page is pretty absurd--it's obviously a fan-perception-based negative review, where there shouldn't be one at all. Ask yourself why it says "many had problems with blah blah blah" instead of just listing the factual error? People don't like Cross' book because it makes Kurt look like the confused, ambivalent semi-hypocrite that he was, and confused people need Kurt to be this accidental saint, a view which the book ruins.

One has to ask: why should Courtney's page be an in-depth exploration (and thus, undeniably, a commercial plug) that is allowed to contextualize the movie as if it demonstrates the possibility that she murdered Kurt? It doesn't, and Nick doesn't think it does either. Nick has basically said what the movie is really about is him trying to have the movie made. You could say that she "suppressed" the movie, but since when is that unusual in Hollywood? Is it REALLY shocking to anyone that she wouldn't allow him to put Kurt's music in a film bashing his wife? Yet he whines about it, moronically. And as for the weirdness of suppressing journalists, give me a break--you know Kurt threatened to have murdered two women who were going to write an expose on him & Courtney. All high-powered Hollywood people retain lawyers for insane garbage like Broomfield's. How can any self-respecting Kurt fan not want to laugh or cry during the scene where Nick exclaims surprise at the fetus art at Tracy Marander's house. "GOSH" he says, like he never saw the front & back covers to In Utero in his life. When the movie wrapped, he said he'd like to investigate Biggie Smalls and Tupac next. You know, after doing Kurt, Courtney, and Heidi Fleiss.

Anyway, to the point, Nick has said on the record, "I think that he committed suicide. I don't think that there's a smoking gun. And I think there's only one way you can explain a lot of things around his death. Not that he was murdered, but that there was just a lack of caring for him. I just think that Courtney had moved on, and he was expendable."

There is nothing there but slander, and if the paragraph were titled something moronic like "Courtney Love, enemy of free speech and also, uh, member of ACLU" then perhaps your suggestion that her suppression of the film was noteworthy would be accurate. It isn't.

As for her legal problems amounting to a list of what they are...? I don't understand the question. As opposed to saying what? She's a skeezy drug addict? Kurt was a skeezy drug addict who abandoned his daughter. Why not include "some people think" that as well? I see them both as hugely flawed individuals. Thing is, wiki isn't the forum for expressing that. If you want to, start your own site.

As for putting Courtney's article up for review, please--by all means. I don't know how one goes about it, but the editors who frequent the page don't seem to mind the recent changes. It's totally amusing to me that you think having a page that doesn't smash her is showing bias. It's normal for wiki. Kurt's page is weird. Again I suggest you read around. It's a pretty obvious fact and those silly, totally vague wiki policies don't change it at all. But tell me how to put her page up for comment; I'd be happy to. Mistertruffles 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kurt and Courtney element

Okay, whoever you are, go no further without signing up for an account so we can actually dialogue about this without you floating between Philadephia-area IP addresses.

For starters, reverting back to your original version was not acceptable here. I noted several problems beyond the one that you tried to explain with your last edit. Feel free to re-read them in the history and address them as needed.

But here are the two main problems:

1) THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE FOR THE MOVIE. The sentences about how the movie shifts to attack Courtney ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE. You are more than welcome to add the content to the article on the movie, which can be found here: Kurt & Courtney. Feel free to expand that article as much as you want. The SPECIFIC reason the movie is discussed here is for how it relates to the study of Kurt's death, PERIOD.

2) "overview of the source opinions in Broomfield's Kurt and Courtney" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE. That constitutes original research. Sources must be cited to specific people and/or specific comments. If those comments are citeable to specific people in the movie, fine. But you can't just summarize the movie and use the summary as a source. -- ChrisB 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, don't be so condescending. I simply tried again to introduce what I thought was important about the movie to the article. And that isn't acceptable because? Every wiki article has its own interest group cabal, with far too much time on their hands and a general interest in controlling the flow of knowledge to excessive lengths. Who would have thought that an article with as small of life-altering possibilites as one of Kurt Cobain would follow the pattern?

1)Overall, Broomfield felt that he hadn't uncovered enough evidence to prove a conspiracy, but felt that "Courtney's people" had made the film's production extremely difficult, closely monitoring the angle of his investigation and applying the pressures that eventually cut off his funding How this doesn't relate to the conspiracy is beyond me.

2)One by one, this is precisely what each source says, or at least what several of them do. This is not original research. Did you even see the film? I'd laugh if you didn't and yet, here you are telling me what I'm citing from it is somehow irrelevant to the movie or original research.--72.92.120.106 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending. I take exception to people who feel their content should be entered and remain unaltered, even when there are objections. Wikipedia articles are based on being community efforts - one piece from one person, one piece from someone else. Continuing to jam in a set of text that another person finds objectionable is not the way to handle it. It's all about finding a balance that everyone can be happy with. Just to reiterate: you TWICE returned your original version of the paragraph without accommodating (or acknowledging) the objections.

1) Broomfield specifically said he didn't think there was a conspiracy around Kurt's death, so trying to use his story to imply there was one doesn't work.

2) You're not citing from it, you're summarizing. You can't assume that everyone who reads this article has seen the movie and knows who these "sources" are. Wikipedia's guidelines are specific about this. You need to either supply the names of the people who expressed those opinions or provide Broomfield's narrative (and place it in that context). -- ChrisB 03:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well for one, you came in here shouting. Your "explanation" - objection - has only recently surfaced on her. Prior to that, it was a one line description that shook no tree. It is in your place to voice your objection first, and if it is baseless, well, then your opinion does not matter any more than mine would, and your revert is unwarranted. Perhaps you think the fact that it is your opinion is more important than your opinion's content?

Speaking of groundless accusations, you still have not explained why Overall, Broomfield felt that he hadn't uncovered enough evidence to prove a conspiracy, but felt that "Courtney's people" had made the film's production extremely difficult, closely monitoring the angle of his investigation and applying the pressures that eventually cut off his funding is "objectionable" or off-topic. It only feeds the claims of conspiracy theorists. By the way, who said that I was even "trying to use" this forum to show there was a conspiracy? Broomfield even talks to a source that discredits the "gun operation under the influence of heroin" theory that grant presses so adamently, and I tried to put this into the article about Broomfield too. 2) as for citing that summary, maybe we don't have to. We could just say "in the opinion of those close to kurt".--72.92.120.106 4:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did explain it, and several times: It has NOTHING to do with Cobain. That sentence you're quoting specifically relates to Broomfield and Courtney. As I said already, Broomfield does not believe that Courtney's efforts to stop him have anything to do with trying to cover up "Kurt's murder". So using it to "feed the claims of conspiracy theorists" is completely inappropriate.

One more time, for clarity: it cannot be proven that Courtney hampering Broomfield's investigation had ANYTHING to do with the murder/suicide conspiracy. Because it cannot be tied directly to Kurt's death, it does not belong in this article, particularly when that section is about the specific elements of the conspiracy. We're including the specific elements of the conspiracy that are discussed in the movie, and, by Broomfield's own admission, Courtney hampering his investigaion isn't one of them.

Completely unrelated: Broomfield's "discovery" about the gun operation can't be used as supporting evidence. It's already been contested by several sources, Grant included. Broomfield's "test" wasn't scientifically executed, which should end the discussion. However, the real problem is that the subject was using methadone, not heroin. Broomfield's effort is anecdotal at best, unrelated at worst. (Which is the main reason it isn't included.)

2) Again, who are "those close to Kurt"? Those people have to be identified to use the quotes. Drawing a conclusion from watching a movie is original research, plain and simple. And, as I said before, if Broomfield's narration said something like, "After speaking with Cobain's friends and family, it was clear that he had a history of depression", etc - we could use that and attribute it to Broomfield. That would be fine. But neither you nor any other Wiki editor can provide that summary themselves - it's SPECIFICALLY against Wikipedia guidelines. -- ChrisB 04:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment about my edit: 03:11, 3 November 2006

I'm adding this just because I don't think I had enough room in the edit summary to explain this. I didn't look to see who added that section, so please don't take this personally.

I'm not comfortable using comments Kurt made in 1991 about a completely unrelated circumstance as proof of suicide. There's no intrinsic tie between the two. Nowhere in the suicide note did Kurt suggest that his stomach pain led to his suicide, which is what the quote was referencing.

If he had a history of depression, that's one thing. If he'd attempted suicide in '91, I think that'd be fair game as well. But people often say things like, "Man, I almost killed myself," after a bad break-up or other negative circumstance - it doesn't mean they're serious. (Plus, that comment reads like he was simply trying to justify his heroin usage - ie, "I'd have died if I hadn't taken heroin" implies that he had no choice in the matter.)

And Kurt was prone to saying things like that, even when he wasn't serious. There are people who think that "I Hate Myself and Want to Die" predicted his suicide, even though the title was just a band joke.

Here's where I'm going. People often talk about suicide and never commit suicide. People often commit suicide and leave no prior verbal indication that they were ever depressed or ever considered suicide. There's no foundational link between the two - even if Kurt talked about it and later did it.

Mentioning health factors that predispose suicide (of which he had several) I think are fair. But I think using quotes like that one are just misleading. -- ChrisB 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. See, that is a good, thorough explanation--72.92.120.106 4:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This para mentions more than 'health factors' - it quotes without citation factors that his friends thought may have been pertinent. Could these sources be either cited or removed please? Without them , this is groundless speculation (and even with them, it's still not a list of 'health factors' - his friends are laymen, not doctors).

White hotel 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it. Anyways, as I explained in the edit summary, I mainly added it to back up the counterpoint that Cobain was depressed and had comtemplated suicide before by providing an example. The comment itself comes from 1993, I believe, but I can't be sure since it was taken from original material collected from interviews by Azerrad for his book, meaning Cobain told him this stuff directly. The context doesn't indicate that it was meant to be a joke; it's from a long section where he's trying to rationalize his use of heroin, so he comes off as pretty defensive. I also think there were some other (in retrospect) unsettling quotes from him along those lines, but I can't remember where I read them at the moment. But the point is, yes, he has been shown to be suicidal previously.

Also on that note, Azerrad writes in the final chapter that the Rome incident seems like a clear suicide attempt to him given comments Cobain made to him about how he was very clear about the affects of mixing pills and alcohol and how he purposefully avoided doing it (Azerrad even directs the reader to the page number where Cobain said this). WesleyDodds 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he was depressed in the 91 quote. He said he was at his wit's end because of the pain. Those are two entirely different things, which is the specific reason that I think this quote is inappropriate. Like I said, I don't have a problem with including the factual information about his medical history and psychological issues, but pulling random quotes where he mentions suicide doesn't work. It's no different from including a sentence that says, "Kurt also wrote a song called 'I Hate Myself and Want to Die'." There HAS to be something better than that quote that we can put in there.

And, in fairness, Azerrad's statement doesn't work. Azerrad freely admits that he saw Kurt for the last time in the fall of 1993 and has no specific information about Kurt's last months. And it's VERY common for people to say things like, "Oh, I would never do that," and then have that exact thing happen, intentionally or not. (How common is it to hear the child of an alcoholic say, "After seeing what it did to my [parent], I'll never do that," then have them wind up an alcoholic?)

You just can't take people's words to predict things like suicide, or use them for or against it happening. Charles Peterson's last conversation with Kurt was entirely positive, and he got no indication that Kurt would kill himself. Others have said the same thing. Suicides regularly happen at the drop of a hat with no warning, which is precisely why we aren't including statements from people who say, "Kurt wasn't suicidal." There's just no correlation between words and actions, with the possible exception of someone coming forward saying that the person was specifically threatening to kill themselves (eg, "I'm going to kill myself") in the days before their deaths. There's no indication that this was the case with Kurt.

That 91 quote just does not work. I don't see any justification for keeping it. We need to find something better. -- ChrisB 04:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a section that preceeds that quote from the same page (236):

Kurt's stomach pain had been driving him insane on the European tour, making him chronically irritable and antisocial. "A lot of the hatred would surface because I was in such a fucked-up mental state," he says. "I was so angry with my body that i couldn't deal with anyone socially. I was just totally neurotic because I was in pain all the time. People had no idea I was in pain and I couldn't complain about it twenty-four hours a day."

He says the pain made him suicidal, so he simply chose his poison. "I just decided I wanted to have a life," he says. "If I'm going to kill myself, I'm going to kill myself for a reason instead of some stupid stomach problem. So I decided to take everything in excess all at once."

Obviously the case could be made that Cobain was rationalizing his heroin use (which he was; virtually everything he says in that chapter is to that effect). But it's still pretty clear that he contemplated suicide. I will try to find other stuff, but like I said, we need citations for stuff like that, and that's what I've found so far. WesleyDodds 05:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found another one. This is in reference to the whole Vanity Fair debacle:

It seemed hopeless--doctors, government agencies, the press all were against them. At one dark moment, they took out Kurt's handgun and considered taking their own lives.

"It was just so humiliating and it just felt like so many powerful people were out to get us that it just seemed hopeless," says Kurt. "It didn't seem like we'd ever win. It was amazing. We were totally suicidal. It's not the right time for a woman trying to get rid of the hormonal problems of just having a baby and me just getting off of drugs and just being bombarded with this. It was just too much." But in the end, they put down the gun. (pg. 271) WesleyDodds 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is assumed that Kurt killed himself because of drug abuse.Although many assume that Courtney Love killed him herself. They're is no way in a person could shoot a gun with Chuck Taylor's on by holding the gun with his foot so therefore this still remains to Kurt committing suicide

Pictures

The article fails to give proper fair use reasoning for why they are included in the article, why they would make the article less valuable if they weren't there. The reason must also be more substantial than that of aesthetics. The blanked fair use tag is not enough by itself, it's a one-size fits all designed to stop one of the many wikibots from deleting and removing images from articles on site.--I'll bring the food 23:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, I'll bring the food 02:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me break. Trivial things like this have no bearing on GA status. And most of these do not apply: "allege" is not being used as a weasel word in this article.

I responded to your problems with the article in Talk:Kurt Cobain/Comments. -- ChrisB 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The pictures do however lack personalised fair use descriptors, which are a GA issue.--I'll bring the food 01:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

does he have a god?

In some of the Nirvana songs (COME AS YOU ARE), Kurt sings of having no god. In the song LITHIUM, Kurt says he found a god. can any of you guys explain this? --Vegen8tor 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

please ANSWER

No offense intended, but this discussion does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk pages are intended to be used to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss random topics related to the subject. There are several Nirvana forums and message board where this question might be more readily discussed and resolved. -- ChrisB 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Come As You Are mentions nothing about God, it's actually saying "I don't have a gun...". Either way, I don't think Kurt's lyrics really meant a whole lot, he himself has stated that half the time he wrote songs he was just pulling stuff out of his ass.

The authorized biography of Nirvana, Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana, states clearly that the song is not autobiographical. Cobain himself states that he did not experience any religious epiphany, the song was inspired by the time he spent living briefly with a family that was religious. Asarelah 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Day of death in third paragraph

Removed piece:

"officially dying on April 5."

This statement is misleading and borderline false. He probably died on the 5th. His official date of death is the 5th. But he did not "officially die" on the 5th. The specific phrasing "officially dying" is the problem. If you wanted to say: "the coroner's office set his day of death as the 5th", that would be significally more accurate.

The problem with the wording of "officially dying" is that it implies certainty. They don't know for certain that he died on the 5th. He could have died on the 4th or 6th. (See the big "c." in front of the 5th at the top of the article? It stands for "circa", which means "approximately".) But their best judgement is that he died on the 5th.

However, and this is the main reason I keep removing it - IT'S REDUNDANT. The date of death is in the first line of the first paragraph, so repeating it in the third paragraph is absolutely unnecessary. Furthermore, the fact that the 5th is an approximation is clearly stated later in the article.

Explain it to me: why do we have to spell this out in the third paragraph? -- ChrisB 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Removing "circa" doesn't solve anything. The 5th is AN APPROXIMATION. It was made by the coroner's office based on the state of the body at the time that it was found - decomposition, etc. There is not a single human being on this planet that can say with absolute certainty that Cobain died on the 5th. Nobody knew he was dead until the 8th.

The exact same situation applies to Layne Staley. Nobody knows when he died, given that his body wasn't found for two weeks. The coroner's office made a guess for him as well. That doesn't mean he actually died on that day. It's just the best guess as to when he might have died.

If you want to change anything in this matter, the first thing you need to do is start typing here. What exactly is your goal - why are you pushing for this change? -- ChrisB 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make this abundantly clear, the death certificate specifically says the following over where the medical examiner signed it:

"ON THE BASIS OF EXAMINATION AND/OR INVESTIGATION, IN MY OPINION DEATH OCCURRED AT THE TIME, DATE AND PLACE AND WAS DUE TO THE CAUSE(S) STATED."

Emphasis: IN MY OPINION

The death certificate also says:

1. "PRONOUNCED DEAD: APRIL 8, 1994"

2. "HOUR OF DEATH: ?PM"

Yes, that's a question mark for the hour of death. They have no idea when exactly he died. The medical examiner is guessing the 5th based on the examination. Cobain was pronounced dead on the 8th, at 10:30am.

Link: Hi-res copy of death certificate

-- ChrisB 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this edit. My understanding is that he was found on April 8th, and experts determined that he had been dead for at least 34 hours. The date of death was estimated to be approximately April 5th. What exactly is the point of changing the factual statement "The report estimates Cobain to have died on April 5, 1994." to the misleading "The report officially placed Cobain's death on April 5, 1994."? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also the opinion of the ME that he died of a self-inflicted gun-shot wound. I guess since we can never know if that is absolute fact we shouldn't appeal to the autopsy report. Hey, I guess since we can never know if he even died we shouldn't appeal to the report, witnesses, or photographs. Hell, I guess since we can't really know if we exist we shouldn't appeal to anything. You're right, if it isn't written by God (or the apparent god of the Kurt Cobain Wikipedia page) it doesn't stand up to Wikipedia standards.

It is misleading the way it is now. I guarantee you plenty of people believe he died on April 8 after reading this article. --Lithfo 08:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lithfo, how could anyone possibly think he died on April 8th from reading this article? Your version is the one that's misleading. The article (before you edited it) reports only the facts as known, which are:

1. The body was found on April 8th, 1994;
2. The date of death was estimated to be April 5th, 1994.

By changing "The report estimates Cobain to have died on April 5, 1994." to "The report legally places Cobain's death on April 5, 1994.", as you have again done, in violation of WP:3RR, your version is the one that is misleading, by implying a certainty about the precise date of death that does not in fact exist. I'm changing it back to the way it was before you started making these changes; please make your case here explaining what you're trying to accomplish. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Litfo - you did notice that 20% of the article covers the fact that a sizeable audience disputes the ruled cause of death? It wouldn't be the first time that a death certificate was wrong. (Most municipalities have a process by which a death certificate can be challenged or altered should it be incorrect.) A death certificate is not a statement of fact, it's a certification of expert judgement. It's the opinion of the person who would be best able to make the declaration. It is not a document of fact, nor is it intended to be - it's there to confirm that a person is deceased.

I agree with Jim - I don't understand how anyone could possibly construe the article to claim that he died on the 8th. It clearly mentions in three different places that he more than likely died on the 5th.

What I don't understand - what is your motive? Is there a dispute between you and someone who chooses to mark April 8th as their day of rememberance? In case you aren't aware - in the initial years after Kurt's death, EVERYONE marked the 8th. That was the important day - Friday, April 8th, 1994, the day that the world found out that Cobain was dead. April 5th was just another day. The Nirvana USENET group (alt.music.nirvana) was established on April 7th, and people openly discussed Nirvana as a current band, having absolutely no idea that anything was amiss. The 8th was the shock. And, for several years, people celebrated his life on that day. It wasn't until the death certificate's finding was publicized (through books, posters, t-shirts, etc) did anyone commemorate his death on the 5th. The 5th has superceded the 8th in recent years, since younger Nirvana fans don't have the personal memories to note any significance of the 8th.

But that's beyond the point. Stating the 5th as the "official date of death" is flat out misleading. And I cannot imagine that anyone would read this article and believe he died on the 8th. -- ChrisB 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ChrisB obviously has way too much interest in this article, in my opinion. Although knowledgeable, his insistence at keeping even re-wording at bay seems a bit over the top. Just an opinion from some who follows along, and knows a bit about it more than he. RasputinJSvengali

ChrisB

Seriously, you have problems. You can't stand it when anyone changes anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithfo (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to the article should actually improve the article. They shouldn't be minor rewordings made simply for the sake of changing the article.

For the record, I wasn't the only one who objected to your changes regarding the 5th / 8th issue, and I wasn't the only one who reverted them. After that, you started making very minor changes that had no bearing on the article - they implied that you were simply looking for some way to "leave your mark". If you want to make improvements to the article, look for places beyond simple wording. This article definitely has room for improvement with regard to content.

BTW - reverting vandalism is definitely welcome. But be sure to double-check the article's history to see how much vandalism was made. The revert you did [3] only corrected the last vandal edit - the vandal made two other edits [4] [5] prior to that one. -- ChrisB 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to leave my mark. I'm just curious to see how stubborn someone can be about minor changes. Adding "Thank you" or, in the absence of such a pleasantry, excluding "Please" for consistency is one such example. I mean, come on, are you that obsessed with the Kurt Cobain wikipedia entry that you cannot accept someone making a change that isn't even visible on the normal page? Aside from meeting your spite with spite, I would agree with my addition (or exclusion) anyway, even if I were to view the situation from an outside perspective. As I've said in my edits, the phrase is "Mind your P's AND Q's", not "Mind your P's OR Q's". One more thing - given some of the comments I've read on the History page, I have to suspect some of this vandalism has been born out of frustration from your actions.--Lithfo 04:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Making edits for any reason other than improving the article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines. If you have an issue with an editor, it should be handled through discussion, not by monkeying with the article and making frivolous edits.

Vandalism is vandalism. It can't be justified by blaming it on another editor. Again, if someone has an issue with my actions, they should take it up with me here or on my talk page. Every worthwhile edit can and should be defended - and I am more than happy to specifically explain why I reverted an edit. I try to make the reasons explicitly clear in my edit summaries.

Excluding "please" does not make consistency. In fact, it makes that one note inconsistent from the others - most of the notes on the page say "please" in them. (Look at the note immediately below that one: "please do not add".) Similarly, not only does adding "thank you" to that note serve no purpose, it causes the note to differ from the rest.

There is a specific methodology behind the editors notes. Those notes say "please" because the note is a request. There is no guideline forbidding someone from making the change - the note is simply requesting that an editor not make that change. It's clear advance warning that the change might be immediately reverted because of extenuating circumstances.

The notes that lack "please" do so to be more forceful, and cover material that has either been discussed extensively or can be immediately reverted because of specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as prior consensus.

By the way, for the record, the statement "mind your p's and q's" is simply a request for common courtesy, not a written command forcing the inclusion of "thank you" every time you say "please". [6] Adding "thank you" to every note on this page serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

I'm not obsessed with this article or with Cobain. I'm simply a regular editor. I've taken a vested interest in maintaining this article, and that's encouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. That doesn't mean my edits are any more valid than anyone else's.

Again, if you have a problem with any edit I make, take it up here. I'm more than happy to explain every edit I make. Any edit worth making is worth defending, and should be. -- ChrisB 07:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If a competent writer re-wrote this article using the exact same content, but with a completely different, more "encyclopedic" tone, it would drive you nuts. You obviously have your own personal vanity wrapped up with this page. An average undergrad could use the same content here, and write a superior article. I am of the mind that you would call it vandalism. In my opinion. RasputinJSvengali 06:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Says the guy who tried to jam content into the article claiming that Cobain committed suicide as an effort to reincarnate himself into the body of his eighteen-month-old daughter. Encyclopedic, my ass. -- ChrisB 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. We gave up. Your persistance makes you into a "Wikiclown". And an uninformed one, at that.

That is a fact about the reason he committed suicide. Complete ritual. Called the Red Rite. Everyone who was an Adept member of his IOT Temple in Seattle knows it to be a fact. Some cops know it. But do not want to bring assisted suicide charges against, well...

Wikipedias cracks are showing. Like all internet phenomenons it will have a shelf life of only a few years. After which your time goal-tending will mean nothing. And ol Curt will still be dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, in an perhaps misguided attempt to perform the Red Rite. No big for us. For you, ignorance will have to be your bliss.RasputinJSvengali 20:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." -- ChrisB 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware the phrase calls for general courtesy (among other things), but specifically it refers to the words "please" and "thank you". I was using it in a literal sense on purpose since it happened to fit the situation so well. Do not ever construe anything I write in such a manner to be so narrow in meaning.

If anything, you should have either changed everything with "please" to include a "thank you" at the end or requested I do it. I won't because I don't care enough, but, then again, I'm not the Captain of this page.--Lithfo 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird. It's almost like your "vested interest" in this article is actually hurting it and annoying a lot of people. But there's probably just a problem with everyone else, not you, ChrisB. --Lithfo 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. -- ChrisB 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what's the problem with "Nirvana, led by Cobain". At first i disagreed with what Lithfo said but I'm now more inclined to agree. You make it sound like Nirvana and Cobain are two separate entities that reshaped 1990s grunge. when 1990s grunge would probably not have become mainstream if one did not have the other. Dirtybutclean 12:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1) "Led by Nirvana" is redundant, given that we just spent an entire paragraph noting that he led the band. 2) It splits a perfectly functioning sentence with a participial. 3) "Cobain and Nirvana" is a very common journalistic practice to highlight a member of a group when already speaking about said member.

I can understand attacking me if it's over something that greatly affects the article. But when we're talking about minor changes that are not clear and away improvements to the article, it's baffling. I've said this already - changes to the article should improve the article - we shouldn't just be making minor rewordings. These are lateral changes.

And, one more time, I'm just as allowed to have an opinion as every other editor. Go through the history - you'll notice that I don't revert everything. When I revert something, I usually have a specific reason why. If anyone has a problem with any of my edits, they can bring it up here and I'll be happy to discuss it. If we need a compromise, I'm more than happy to find it. For example, if you don't like "Cobain and Nirvana", then we always just strike "Cobain and" and start with "Nirvana helped". -- ChrisB 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think ChrisB has worked really really hard to keep a lot of crazy shit off this page. The number of people who edit this page with vomit-inducing bullshit on a weekly basis is pretty high, and ChrisB has defended the page against barrels of it. Attacking him is, to me, a little over the top. I just think the price the page pays is that it has a lot of Kurt-fan nonsense on it (like the very leading introduction, the way-too-big conspiracy section, and the completely absurd fan-opinion-dominated section on Kurt-related books), and you unfortunately have to fight ChrisB over every shred of it, because he's so used to defending the page against crazy people. I'm glad the page is finally tagged for resembling a fan site, but I wish it would get fixed. I also still think the conspiracy section is slander. The fact that a certain small percentage of the public has an incredibly mild belief in a Kurt Cobain conspiracy theory should be reflected by a paragraph summing up the main proponents of said theory, and perhaps a couple of its main points of reasoning (perhaps not)--then those interested can seek it out for themselves. It's not like there aren't a bunch of retarded sites to go visit if you want to read "El Duce's last words" and all that other horseshit. Mistertruffles 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide Note

I removed the suicide note text. The note's content is of unclear copyright, and was recently removed from Wikisource because it was deemed not to be covered by fair use or to be public domain. -- ChrisB 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I Think This Should Be Included In The Article Under Death. I Also Have A Brilliant Picture Of Kurt With His Guitar.

Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not

Cobain's suicide note is not particularly relevant to the death article itself, seeing as he is hardly the only person in the world to write a suicide note. He's in the suicide subcategory of the death category, that is enough.Asarelah 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant Photo

File:Example KurtCobain.jpg

(Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, its a good picture. If you find out its copyright status, we may be able to add it to the article. Asarelah 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Its An Image On A Myspace Profile. Im Not Sure What That Counts As. Should I Message The User And Ask Them If I Can Use It ? (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

I doubt that the Myspace user took the picture themselves or owns the rights to it. You need to ask them where they got it from, and you need to ask for any copyright information that they can give you. Asarelah 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ive been told that he was given it by a friend and has unknown orgin. i belive that it has no copyright. (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 23:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

If the origin is unknown, it cannot be assumed to have no copyright. On the contrary - any photo of unknown origin is automatically assumed to have a copyright.

I couldn't tell you the origin from looking at it, but the outside edge and the quality of the photo (as well as the fact that it's black and white) makes me think it was taken by Charles Peterson. -- ChrisB 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I found it. This picture is DEFINITELY copyrighted. It was taken by Steve Gullick in November of 1993. Gullick released a book of Nirvana photographs: http://www.amazon.com/Nirvana-Steve-Gullick/dp/1903399173. The cover picture for that book is from the same set as this one. -- ChrisB 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Photo On There Looks Great As Well, Someone Please Try To Get Approval, The Photographs Are Excellent. (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Look up wikipedias policies regarding fair use of copyrighted material. Asarelah 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for more information about Cobain as a guitarist

This article contains a lot of good information about Cobain's life but is seriously lacking in information regarding his influence as a guitarist. Though not a virtuoso, Cobain is undoubtably one of the most influential guitarists of the past 20 years and this needs to be given just recognition. --Gypsyjazzbo 11:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Cobain's #12 ranking on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time list to intro, planning a section discussing Cobain's style and gear. --Gypsyjazzbo 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it warrants a mention. You may wish to mention the Fender Jag-Stang. Asarelah 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A list created by a magazine is not notable. It's simply a statement of opinion by a group of editors. RS is not widely considered an expert source for the ranking of guitarists.

As for my own opinion - Cobain is not an influential guitarist. He was a guitarist, and he was influential, but his influence was not in his guitar-playing. He didn't pioneer anything or do anything that set him apart as a guitarist. In fact, he was widely criticized by those who pay attention to guitar techniques for his lack thereof.

Cobain is an influential songwriter who played guitar. If anything, his influence as a guitarist was that he brought back simplicity to guitar-oriented music, where the emphasis had been on complication in the years prior (eg, hair metal). Most people who cite Cobain as an influence do so because they want to emulate what he played, not how he played it. -- ChrisB 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

I'm starting this as a response to Mistertruffles statement under Talk:Kurt Cobain#ChrisB.

I'm actually extremely disappointed in the way the tags were added. Wiki's guidelines are pretty clear - when a tag is added to an article, an explanation should accompany it to allow editors to accommodate the concern.

While I think certain elements of the Suicide Dispute section could be cleaned up, I'm not entirely clear how it's unbalanced. The foundation of the section is that the key points are made and, where possible, a source is offered that debunks the claim. There aren't any "neglected viewpoints". And the only contrary viewpoint is that Cobain committed suicide - and suicide (in general) is nearly impossible to factually prove. The Seattle PD can't prove that Kurt committed suicide, they simply concluded it as the most likely circumstance given the evidence they found. (About the only way to conclusively prove a suicide is for there to be a videotape of the act.)

Beyond that, the section is categorically not slander. Slander would be writing the section as statements of fact: "Courtney Love paid Cali Dewitt to kill Cobain. Dewitt was Cobain's heroin dealer and friend, and Cobain trusted him to prepare his doses. That night, rather than preparing a usual dose, Dewitt prepared a mega-dose. When Cobain shot up, he was immediately incapacitated. Once Cobain was out cold, Dewitt took out Cobain's shotgun, placed it in Cobain's mouth, and pulled the trigger. He then obtained Cobain's original note, to which Courtney had added extra lines to sound more like a suicide note, and placed it on the table. He then locked the door of the greenhouse and pulled it closed behind him."

Regardless, the conspiracy is notable. I would really note it as more notable than, say, the 9/11 or lunar landing conspiracies the claims are being levelled by someone who was actively involved. This isn't a case where Joe Blow concocted a theory by noticing that Kurt was listed as 5'11 on the death certificate, noting that Kurt was generally listed as being 5'7", and using it to "prove" that Kurt's body was switched. Grant was in Seattle and working for Courtney when it happened and had first-hand access to much of the evidence in question. The validity of his claims is certainly up for debate. But the notability is there regardless, supported by the coverage by media outlets including CNN and MSNBC.

And I would readily challenge this: "a certain small percentage of the public has an incredibly mild belief". Those who believe it aren't "mild" about it. And the only way it's a "small percentage" is if you include people who don't follow Nirvana or Cobain. People who have an opinion (either for or against) tend to feel very strongly about it.

As far as general cleanup goes, here are a few things I think we need to do:

1) The article, in general, is a mess of random trivia. There isn't a narrative of any kind. Anecdotes like the Kneivel bit are pointless. We don't need to name the elementary schools he attended or the specific store that his first guitar came from. The entire history section should be rewritten to more generally cover his life. The notes about authors he liked should be more directly correlated to their influence, such as Süskind's book being the basis for "Scentless Apprentice".

2) I agree, I think the Books on Cobain section is a mess. I think the section could be rewritten to talk about Cobain and his own myth - that he had a tendency to embellish his life's story in interviews. That wouldn't be WP:OR in that Heavier Than Heaven spends an extensive amount of pages debunking the stories that Kurt told to Azerrad and others. Doing that would give us a way to talk about those books in a useful way while adding balance for those who believe that this article is overly flattering.

3) The Suicide Dispute section could use some cleanup. I would like to remove the Richard Lee paragraph entirely - his opinions aren't particularly notable. (I can't really understand why Wikipedia has an article on him, and, if I felt more strongly about it, I would list it for deletion.) Yes, he has conviction, and, yes, he's still pushing his opinion. But I don't think he offers anything that helps explain the conspiracy. I also want to split the statement about Grohl and Novoselic's silence to be more neutral - their silence should neither help nor disprove.

4) The chronology of the article is impossible to follow. It jumps all over the place, and unnecessarily. I think it'd be worth splitting the notable elements into specific sections, somewhat like we've done now, but doing so more unilaterally. Ie, put all of the Music elements together, all of the Drug Addiction elements together, etc. I think some sections can be tossed, like the paragraphs about how he thought he could be gay. That element was never notable in his life, and seems to be the focus of those who are desperate to label him as a bisexual. (The SNL incident wasn't an act of homosexuality - it was simply a joke. Grohl and Novoselic were more "passionate" when they did it, and neither of them were accused of being gay because of it. Kurt was so out of it when it happened that it looked as if he had little idea what was going on.)

Anyway, there's more, but I think that's a place to start. -- ChrisB 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ChrisB, I agree with you in general and think you have good instinct regarding improvement. Removing trivia has been something I've done over at the Courtney Love page which I suppose is still ongoing, although I don't know how much I really care anymore. I've done a ton of work on it already and am kinda bored of it. I also agree with you on how to balance out the Books section.

Regarding slander: there is no textbook definition. Or rather, the definition includes that defamation is subjective and arguable. But if the insinuation is there and the evidence is not, then a court may agree.

The reason I mention that is simple: the suicide conspiracy section invokes people with little or no authority (starting with, for the love of God, a public access show host) then overturns those people with authorities, but seemingly only as an afterthought. My opinion is, quite simply, that these arguments should be altered radically to take the fundamental emphasis away from the "voice in the wilderness" prose style which typifies them and makes the pro-homicide people sound heroic. The debunker in the first paragraph, for example, is given way less text and way less emphasis than the man who has nothing to back up his allegation. "Making note of several discrepancies"? Fuck that bullshit--either list those discrepancies in specific, cited, or don't include such a sentence at all. Because it serves to make him sound authoritative where he isn't necessarily. Ultimately, if you read that paragraph, 90% of it is entirely useless and serves to validate Richard Lee in the eyes of the reader. A condensed version of the relevant facts therein would read something like: "In Lee's opinion, the video showed a surprising absence of blood for what was reported as a point-blank shotgun blast to the head. Several pathology experts, however, have noted that a shotgun blast inside the mouth often results in less blood, unlike a shotgun blast to the head."

Moving onto the next paragraph, on toxicology, I find it ridiculous that the "noted experts" on heroin lead the article coming from a Halperin & Wallace book citation -- whereas, meanwhile, the Associated Press and all impartial experts involved deem it a possibility. Then for no apparent reason we get all this morbid shit about Grant's theories, none of which are backed up by anything, or relevant, and serve to distract the paragraph from what should really be its centerpiece response: the fact that all non-conspiracy-theorist-related toxicologists have deemed Cobain's pulling of the trigger a possibility. Why wouldn't the paragraph lead with that? I think it is only fitting.

And what is with all the pro-homicide verbiage anyway? "Tom Grant...adamantly believes that Cobain's death was a homicide." Oh Gee Whiz! ADAMANTLY! Shit like this makes me want to stab my face.

Now the third paragraph. How interesting that "Grant and a number of handwriting experts believe" has no citation whatsoever to back it up, and again the debunking is an afterthought. Why include this at all if the only authorities on record have either agreed it was Cobain or called it inconclusive?

Then you have to factor in the simple fact that handwriting analysis has been knocked frequently as a pseudoscience: No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible. (link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030418.html)

I could go on and on like this. Mistertruffles 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think the main issue is just the usual Wiki one: something which wasn't written well to begin with, and was biased, has retained its faults because it was only shaved down by editing, and people resisted wholesale editing.

Put another way, I believe that this section has been created using text from a vehement argument in favor of homicide theory, and the result is that as it became so-called "NPOV", the vehemence and subtle support of homicide theory has remained. The theory's propagators would like it to be persuasive, and if you ask me the current version of the conspiracy section is very biased toward being persuasive. It also is not being properly scrutinized for lack of citation where necessary. I think we should work cooperatively to fix this, but I would add that my version of the conspiracy section would be waaay more bullet-pointed. I would never give so much credence to the names involved in the conspiracy theory, as it makes them sound like heroes. What matters is the conjecture, its support, and its rebuttal. Mistertruffles 23:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to rework the section to note several of your concerns. However, I think you're missing the greater point. If people want to read about the basics of the theory, they should be able to see the points unencumbered. We can offer CITED contrary statements, but the basic elements should be presented on their own.

That's the predominant problem with this article (and, specifically, with the pieces you inserted into Love's article). Contrary statements must be CITED. The assertion (in Love's article) that El Duce dating Hole's former drummer might have given him a reason to have a beef with Love IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. El Duce was never quoted as saying that he had a problem with Love, and the supposition does not have a verifiable source.

I've tried excruciatingly hard to present the theory in an NPOV manner, and have intentionally excluded supporting evidence of questionable origin or source. For example, Unsolved Mysteries consulted Dr. Cyril Wecht about the heroin figure, and he precluded the possibility that Cobain could have pulled the trigger himself. However, as his Wikipedia article points out, Wecht has been a friend to conspiracy, and that his background is not unimpeachable.

Furthermore, every point in the section has been specifically cited in an intentional effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines. The issue now: several of Grants points have never been contradicted by reliable sources. We use the Dateline piece because it comes from a reliable source. (I have no idea what AP article you're referring to, but I'd like to use it as a source if you have it available.)

No, we don't have to factor in the validity of handwriting analysis, given that neither Grant, NBC, nor even Wikipedia makes note of it. You seem to have completely missed the concept of Wikipedia's original research guidelines. No reliable source has ever asserted that Grant's claims about the suicide note are false because handwriting analysis is a faulty science. Short of that, we CANNOT include it.

If you want to take this further, remember one thing: contrary statements must be CITED. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about the subject, you cannot interject your own personal discoveries into this (or any) article. -- ChrisB 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Props for trying to improve the article but now it just looks like Tom Grant owns a significant chunk of Kurt Cobain's existence and has his own subpage. It's sickening to see completely uncited, unsupported theories ("the second half of the 'suicide' letter, which I've never seen in my life, was about divorcing Courtney"--pure genius) just sitting on their fat asses there, offending common sense. I particularly like the completely irrelevant speculation about where the shotgun would have to be. Where the fuck would a shotgun rest after firing a killing blow? What is the recoil factor on a shotgun being fired by a man probably limp from a drug euphoria? And why aren't my speculations on there now, since I've just made up some uncited conjectures as well?

Then the section proceeds to ramble, ramble, and ramble some more. It's just embarrassing. People haven't condemned Grant's assertions because once a case is closed that would be against police procedure, and because Courtney would never spend money accidentally validating the guy- which is pretty much what this page does. Validates him by being an advertisement for his webpage. If I had my way, any mention of Tom Grant by name would just give a link to his webpage and keep this speculative horseshit out of peoples' faces... WHY is that not possible? WHY does wiki have to bear a section of ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS AND CONJECTURES. THEY ARE ALL AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE! You removed "speculation" from the Courtney page review of Kurt & Courtney -- EVERY SINGLE INTERVIEW WITH EVERY SINGLE PERSON WAS PURE SPECULATION--THE MOVIE DOESNT EVEN BEAR MENTIONING IF SPECULATION IS A PROBLEM! Mistertruffles 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the speculation because it wasn't sourced. Grant's speculation is sourced. Editors are specifically barred by Wikipedia guidelines from entering their own speculation. If you want to add speculation to an article, it must first be asserted by a verifiable reliable source.

I'd suggest re-reading that assertion about the rifle. Grant is claiming that the gun was long enough that if Cobain put the front of the gun against his head, his arm wouldn't have been long enough for him to reach the trigger. As such, he would have had to have pulled the trigger with his toe, yet his shoes were still on his feet when he was found. -- ChrisB 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Also here's my rewrite of another paragraph.

Filmmaker Nick Broomfield decided to "INVESTIGATE THE STORY FOR HIMSELF"(CAN I GET A STYLE REWRITE HERE? I'M A LITTLE TIRED OF THESE VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS), and took a film crew to visit a number of people associated with Cobain and Love, including Love's father, Cobain's aunt, and one of the couple's former nannies. Broomfield also spoke to Mentors bandleader El Duce, who claimed that Love had offered him $50,000 to kill Cobain, and passed a polygraph administered by """well-regarded (IN A COMPLETELY UNCITED WAY, MIND YOU)""" polygraph """"""expert"""""" (IN A COMPLETELY FABRICATED WAY, MIND YOU) Dr. Edward Gelb ( POLYGRAPHS ARE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN COURT, ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY THEY ARE POPULAR ON JERRY SPRINGER- BUT WAIT I'M NOT EVEN BEING CATTY- PLEASE ENJOY THIS LINK ON THE WELL-REGARDED MR. GELB (WHO ISNT EVEN A DOCTOR)- http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml ) . Though Hoke CLAIMED, NOT "NOTED" that he knew who killed Kurt, he failed to mention a name, and offered no evidence to support his assertion (SO WE MENTION HIM FOR NO APPARENT REASON, EVEN THOUGH WE DONT BELIEVE HIM). Broomfield inadvertently captured Hoke's last interview, as he died days later under "UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES" (WHO ARE WE TO DECIDE WE CAN ALLUDE TO THE IDEA HOKE WAS MURDERED? AND LETS BE BLUNT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS HAS ALWAYS REFERRED TO), reportedly hit by a train while drunk. Broomfield titled the finished documentary Kurt & Courtney, and it was released in 1998. In the end, however, Broomfield felt he hadn't uncovered enough evidence to conclude the existence of a conspiracy. In a 1998 interview, Broomfield summed it up by saying, "I think that he committed suicide. I don't think that there's a smoking gun. And I think there's only one way you can explain a lot of things around his death. Not that he was murdered, but that there was just a lack of caring for him. I just think that Courtney had moved on, and he was expendable." Mistertruffles 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OH HEY! One more quick question - why doesn't this article (or ANY of the justiceforkurt bullshit ever mention that Eldon Hoke was a known showbiz phony/prankster? He used to appear as a fake villain (like a wrestling star) on talk shows saying he "promoted rape" and that his contribution to society was "illiterate children who didn't know their father", all so he could collect a paycheck from the Wally George show Hot Seat and promote his band the Mentors (he'd appear with them on the show)--Wally George's show being arguably the direct predecessor to Jerry Springer, which he appeared on promoting his bogus Courtney Love story. Have you ever heard the dialogue? The videos are up on youtube. The whole thing is fucking bullshit any way you slice it Chrisb. The only reason it hasn't been flatly debunked is because a)people are fucking idiots, and b) those who aren't stupid enough to buy it don't actually give enough of a shit. Mistertruffles 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've written all of that, do you honestly believe you are capable of writing an NPOV version of this section? Seriously, I think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are garbage - do I have the license to go through the article and trash the whole thing? By your logic, shouldn't I be able to wipe the entire article and replace it with one sentence: "Many people contend that 9/11 was conducted by a government-supported conspiracy. However, it's all crap, so if you believe it, you're a fucking idiot." Wikipedia is here to provide information, not to judge the information or debunk it. Three guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V. I have no problem altering the content to more closely follow those guidelines, but I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by claiming that the people who believe it are fucking idiots. -- ChrisB 23:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Here are the Eldon Hoke fake sideshow clips on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcZ5sGsINg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jswJ0r8BhBM.

Here's some sample dialogue.

WALLY GEORGE: Are you trying to tell me, you little pervert, that you go along with and encourage rape?

ELDON HOKE: Well, no, only "peaceful rape". That's when a girl passes out...when she's passed out on drugs, we get a gang together...

I think an intelligent, informed NPOV would take out a bunch of this stuff. In fact, I would take EVERYthing that's Tom Grant's, and put it on Tom Grant's wiki page, then take everything that's Halperin & Wallace's, and put it on their wiki page. Any idea why that's not the appropriate response to their total lack of clear evidence? Then all you have left is the laughable Broomfield film, and a few stray comments from random rock stars which would then be realized to be totally irrelevant in the first place. (Thanks Mark Lanegan and Kim Gordon, for your valued input.)

I really think it's the most mature decision. If Grant has a theory, and it isn't proven, then it's really Grant's theory and the business of his wiki page. All the police authorities have, as noted, rejected it. Mistertruffles 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just stop. Seriously, just stop. The farther you go, the more obvious it is that you don't have a CLUE what "NPOV" means. Read this as many times as it takes for it to sink in: WP:NPOV. The first sentence alone should tell you how off-the-mark your proposal is.

By the way - the authorities rejecting his theory doesn't automatically mean that it's false. If you believe that the police are always right, then I hope you never get arrested. -- ChrisB 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic categories

I would like to know why someone has asked why the German-American and Irish-American categories were relevant to the article, and has gone so far as to put boxes above the category section asking that the text be made clear as to why they is relevant to the article. Cobain's ethnic heritage is not particularly important, and if you want citations and such, I'll be happy to oblige, but I just don't see why the inclusion of the information has to be justifed as being relevant. Asarelah 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Death

I think there should be a daughter article - suicide of kurt cobain. maxrspct ping me 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, such a controversial subject with so much debate around it warrants its own article. This main article about Cobain is far too bogged down with theories and conjectures by various journalists. A concise summary of both sides of the arguments is more appropriate, I feel. M A Mason 19:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it, at least in the interim. Just coming up with a name for said article would be a POV nightmare. "Suicide of Kurt Cobain" would not work, and "Death of Kurt Cobain" doesn't suitably describe the material.

If what's here currently is "too bogged down", then the proper solution is to make what's here more concise. Splitting it off into a new article implies that the content should be expanded. -- ChrisB 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisB, anything that goes into the suicide section should be cited so it doesn't become full of OR, what I call fangirlcruft (a bunch of lies made up by fans of Cobain like Courtney Love did it don't take this out lolz or Ashley waz here), and slander. It shouldn't need its own article. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the stuff in the suicide dispute section is already cited, which to be honest makes the process of cutting it down all the more difficult. Removing cited material is certainly frowned upon. I don't see an issue with "Death of Kurt Cobain", it's not POV, and it does cover the subject matter. The article feels too bogged down because every last detail of the case for murder is fully explained; the controversy around his death has become an area of scholarship in itself with films made about it and the book Who Killed Kurt Cobain?, it is not the case that it needs expanding and that isn't suggested by the proposal, quite the opposite - the section has outgrown the article. Also, while some critique of the murder theory is included, there is very little about the case for suicide, other than one paragraph about what some see as "conclusive proof". M A Mason 21:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that because the conspiracy theory comes from pretty much four sources, Tom Grant, Nick Broomfield, David Halperin and Ian Wallace, they should be mentioned, and all relevant information/debate should be on THEIR wiki pages. The authorities have already openly rejected Tom Grant's theory, and there is no clear evidence for anyone's case. The Kurt Cobain page should state this, give the links, and be done with it. If Tom Grant has a theory, and no authority supports it, then Tom Grant's wiki page should contain the theory. Same for everyone else involved. Mistertruffles 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great compromise. Any other thoughts? M A Mason 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise? Ridiculous. Their thoughts encompass the same subject. A person shouldn't have to go to four different articles to get information about the same subject. Furthermore, they're all working off the same theory - Grant started it, and the other three expanded on it. -- ChrisB 21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

“Expanded on it”?! If that’s what you consider self-righteous mystery-mongers, who cannot see the forest for the trees are only important because they believe what they say and can get attention, rehashing trivial peculiarities which go nowhere as far as even providing circumstantial evidence but that can easily be explained away non-conspiratorially. It didn’t “expand”, it is stuck in it’s own sticky, scummy bile after regurgitating the same old self-defeating non-issues for nearly 15 years. The only thing it has to show for it are illiterate 14 year olds with Emo haircuts who think they have some sort of insight into the nature of depression, drug use, and something that happened when they were an embryo. And then maybe some quotes from people which are largely baseless and free-flowing, yet somehow are less baseless and free-flowing than what people whose views that don’t gel with ChrisB’s.

Mistertruffles - don‘t even bother. This is clearly a compact example of hitting the Wiki walls: you cannot cite testable, counter hypothesizes or conclusion contrary to the existing ones simply because even though you can probably do so yourself nobody was bothered enough by the absurdity of the suggestion (and yes - a huge section in the Kurt Cobain section?! You'd think this has anything beyond the testable and defeatable theories of a few men!) to actually put money and time into such … even if there is little data to support said hypothesizes and the burden of proof is on them. Therefore, they aren’t “reputable”. The other are the editors who make it their mission to control the outflow, day in and day out, of any information on the pages after appointing themselves some unspoken guardian. What you get is style over substance - a whole lotta nothing’ dressed up with citations and links and clever wording to embody a “suicide dispute” (yeah, more like small details dispute and predictability dispute) in an entry where one can sense the hand of an adoring fan with rose-colored lenses. As a fan of Kurt myself, there would be nobody in the world more disgusted by it than he.NeoApsara 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'kurt cobain's death' article. There are many books written on the topic and it was one of the biggest events (certainly the biggest in poplular culture) of 1994. There's a 'michael Jackson's Physical Appeaance' article, after all, and I'm not sure he would be happy about that. Nukleoptra 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, most of the stuff said is specualation and rumors and lies. The section in the article should just be improved upon. Nukleoptra 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross' heroin comment

“ Charles Cross disputed this timeline in Heavier Than Heaven, stating that Cobain was deathly afraid of needles in the eighties and set the timeline of his heroin usage in 1990 and blew out of control in 1992. ”

ChrisB removed this from the article, stating "this is cross' opinion, not a statement of fact". The first part of the sentence must be based on some amount of truth, as this seems to be a major biographer of Cobain. What can be included, as it seems relevant. -- Zanimum 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this particular statement is that most of it repeats what already exists in the paragraph it was added to. We already note that his addiction started in 1990, and that he was having trouble in 1992, including the SNL performance and rehab.

To include the first part, we need to know the context. What is Cross basing his opinion on? Being deathly afraid of needles doesn't preclude heroin use. If he has evidence that Kurt's story about his first dealer is a lie, that would be relevant and noteworthy. (I'd love to add a section about Kurt's efforts to reimagine certain periods of his life, and include Cross' efforts to determine what actually happened.) But we need the specifics. -- ChrisB 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

Why has no mention of this been made? This article is like a fan page. 81.157.156.104 13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, that was one thing he did as a kid. He wasn't one of those rock stars who was foever killing animals on stage. Something that most teens do at some point isn't crucial to the article. Everything Kurt ever did in his (admittedly short enough not to take up 10 pages, but still) life does not need to be featured in the article.Nukleoptra 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And 'animal cruelty'is a topic not far up. You should post your views there. Nukleoptra 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan Page

The reason for this is obvious. It is a fan page. Obviously.

I disagree, I think it's very well written and in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia Savagepine 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsolved Mysteries story

Shouldn't it be mentioned about the case of Kurt's death being featured on Unsolved Mysteries? Just an idea. Cs92 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not NPOV

"With the band's success, Cobain became a major national and international celebrity, an uncomfortable position for a man who once said, "Famous is the last thing I wanted to be."[2]"

I don't like that. It strikes me that the article author(s) are incredibly affectionate towards Kobain, which feels like POV. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to emphasize I am not persecuting this article - I like Nirvana - so don't flame me. I just feel a more formal tone is appropriate. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur Dirtybutclean

I'm not going to necessarily fight for that verbiage, but his discomfort with fame is one of the hallmark elements of nearly every examination of his life. -- ChrisB 19:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely but maybe not in the starting though? Dirtybutclean

For the sake of consistency, I have moved the "other hit songs" part under the Nirvana section. If you look at Bono's page for eg, you'll notice that the intro doesn't mention the songs that he wrote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dirtybutclean (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

If you're aiming for consistency, you should emulate a Featured Article, not a random biography. Bono's article fails WP:LEAD: articles of 30,000 characters or more (ie, this one) should have a three to four paragraph lead section. From WP:BETTER: "The lead section ... should establish significances, large implications and why we should care." I think a list of Cobain's hit songs helps explain why we should care. -- ChrisB 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

LOCK THIS ARTICLE FOR GOOD

... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixtyniner (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

This article could do with a lock. I haven't witnessed much vandalism, but I'm guessing that the sections on his death are edited and reverted a lot by Nirvana fans who dislike Courtney Love. Nukleoptra 17:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)